In this paper, we consider the following fractional p-Laplacian equation involving Trudinger-Moser nonlinearity:
(−Δ)sN/su+V(x)|u|Ns−2u=f(u) in RN,
where s∈(0,1),2<Ns=p. The nonlinear function f has exponential critical growth, and potential V is a continuous function. By using the constrained variational methods, quantitative Deformation Lemma and Brouwer degree theory, we prove the existence of least energy sign-changing solutions.
Citation: Kun Cheng, Wentao Huang, Li Wang. Least energy sign-changing solution for a fractional p-Laplacian problem with exponential critical growth[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(12): 20797-20822. doi: 10.3934/math.20221140
[1] | Mengyu Wang, Xinmin Qu, Huiqin Lu . Ground state sign-changing solutions for fractional Laplacian equations with critical nonlinearity. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 5028-5039. doi: 10.3934/math.2021297 |
[2] | Kun Cheng, Shenghao Feng, Li Wang, Yuangen Zhan . Least energy sign-changing solutions for a class of fractional (p,q)-Laplacian problems with critical growth in RN. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 13325-13350. doi: 10.3934/math.2023675 |
[3] | Zonghu Xiu, Shengjun Li, Zhigang Wang . Existence of infinitely many small solutions for fractional Schrödinger-Poisson systems with sign-changing potential and local nonlinearity. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6902-6912. doi: 10.3934/math.2020442 |
[4] | Eleonora Amoroso, Giuseppina D'Aguì, Valeria Morabito . On a complete parametric Sturm-Liouville problem with sign changing coefficients. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 6499-6512. doi: 10.3934/math.2024316 |
[5] | Fugeng Zeng, Peng Shi, Min Jiang . Global existence and finite time blow-up for a class of fractional p-Laplacian Kirchhoff type equations with logarithmic nonlinearity. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2559-2578. doi: 10.3934/math.2021155 |
[6] | Ya-Lei Li, Da-Bin Wang, Jin-Long Zhang . Sign-changing solutions for a class of p-Laplacian Kirchhoff-type problem with logarithmic nonlinearity. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 2100-2112. doi: 10.3934/math.2020139 |
[7] | Zhilin Li, Guoping Chen, Weiwei Long, Xinyuan Pan . Variational approach to p-Laplacian fractional differential equations with instantaneous and non-instantaneous impulses. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16986-17000. doi: 10.3934/math.2022933 |
[8] | Xiuhong Long, Jixiu Wang . A fractional Laplacian problem with critical nonlinearity. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 8415-8425. doi: 10.3934/math.2021488 |
[9] | Xia Li, Wen Guan, Da-Bin Wang . Least energy sign-changing solutions of Kirchhoff equation on bounded domains. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 8879-8890. doi: 10.3934/math.2022495 |
[10] | Dijian Wang, Dongdong Gao . Laplacian integral signed graphs with few cycles. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 7021-7031. doi: 10.3934/math.2023354 |
In this paper, we consider the following fractional p-Laplacian equation involving Trudinger-Moser nonlinearity:
(−Δ)sN/su+V(x)|u|Ns−2u=f(u) in RN,
where s∈(0,1),2<Ns=p. The nonlinear function f has exponential critical growth, and potential V is a continuous function. By using the constrained variational methods, quantitative Deformation Lemma and Brouwer degree theory, we prove the existence of least energy sign-changing solutions.
In this paper, we investigate the existence of a least energy sign-changing solution for the following fractional p-Laplacian problem:
(−Δ)sN/su+V(x)|u|Ns−2u=f(u) in RN, | (1.1) |
where s∈(0,1), 2<Ns:=p, (−Δ)sp is the fractional p-Laplacian operator which, up to a normalizing constant, may be defined by setting
(−Δ)spu(x)=2limε→0+∫RN∖Bε(x)|u(x)−u(y)|p−2(u(x)−u(y))|x−y|N+psdy, x∈RN |
along functions u∈C∞0(RN), where Bε(x) denotes the ball of RN centered at x∈RN and radius ε>0. In addition, the potential V∈C(RN,R), the nonlinear f has exponential critical growth, and such nonlinear behavior is motivated by the Trudinger-Moser inequality (Lemma 2.2).
Recently, the study of nonlocal problems driven by fractional operators has piqued the mathematical community's interest, both because of their intriguing theoretical structure and due to concrete applications such as obstacle problems, optimization, finance, phase transition, and so on. We refer to [18] for more details. In fact, when p=2, problem (1.1) appears in the study of standing wave solutions, i.e., solutions of the form ψ(x,t)=u(x)e−iωt, to the following fractional Schrödinger equation:
iℏ∂ψ∂t=ℏ2(−Δ)sψ+W(x)ψ−f(|ψ|) in RN×R, | (1.2) |
where ℏ is the Planck constant, W:RN→R is an external potential, and f is a suitable nonlinearity. Laskin [25,26] first introduced the fractional Schrödinger equation due to its fundamental importance in the study of particles on stochastic fields modeled by Lévy processes.
After that, remarkable attention has been devoted to the study of fractional Schrödinger equations, and a lot of interesting results were obtained. For the existence, multiplicity and behavior of standing wave solutions to problem (1.2), we refer to [1,9,10,14,19,33] and the references therein.
For general p with 2<p<Ns, problem (1.1) becomes the following fractional Laplacian problem:
(−Δ)spu+V(x)|u|p−2u=f(u) in RN. | (1.3) |
We emphasize that the fractional p-Laplacian is appealing because it contains two phenomena: the operator's nonlinearity and its nonlocal character. In fact, for the fractional p-Laplacian operator (−Δ)sp with p≠2, one cannot obtain a similar equivalent definition of (−Δ)sp by the harmonic extension method in [10]. For those reasons, the study of (1.3) becomes attractive. In [13], the authors obtained infinitely many sign-changing solutions of (1.3) by using the invariant sets of descent flow. Moreover, they also proved (1.3) possesses a least energy sign-changing solution via deformation Lemma and Brouwer degree. We stress that, by using a similar method, Wang and Zhou [35], Ambrosio and Isernia [3] obtained the least energy sign-changing solutions of (1.3) with p=2. For more results involving the fractional p-Laplacian, we refer to [2,17,20,21,32] and the references therein.
Another motivation to investigate problem (1.1) comes from the fractional Schrödinger equations involving exponential critical growth. Indeed, we shall study the case where the nonlinearity f(t) has the maximum growth that allows us to treat problem (1.1) variationally in Ws,Ns(RN) (see the definition in (1.5)). If p<Ns, Sobolev embedding (Theorem 6.9 in [18]) states Ws,p(RN)↪Lp∗s(RN), where p∗s=NpN−sp, and p∗s is called the critical Sobolev exponent. Moreover, the same result ensures that Ws,Ns(RN)↪Lλ(RN) for any λ∈[Ns,+∞). However, Ws,Ns(RN) is not continuously embedded in L∞(RN) (for more details, we refer to [18]). On the other hand, in the case p=Ns, the maximum growth that allows us to treat problem (1.1) variationally in Sobolev space Ws,Ns(RN), which is motivated by the fractional Trudinger-Moser inequality proved by Ozawa [30] and improved by Kozono et al. [23] (see Lemma 2.2). More precisely, inspired by [23], we say that f(t) has exponential critical growth if there exists α0>0 such that
lim|t|→∞f(t)exp(α|t|NN−s)={0, for α>α0,+∞, for α<α0. |
On the basis of this notation of critical, many authors pay their attention to investigating elliptic problems involving the fractional Laplacian operator and nonlinearities with exponential growth. When N=1,s=12, p=2 and replacing R by (a,b), problem (1.1) becomes the following fractional Laplacian equation:
{(−Δ)12u=f(u) in (a,b),u=0 in R∖(a,b). | (1.4) |
When f is o(|t|) at the origin and behaves like exp(αt2) as |t|→∞, by virtue of the Mountain Pass theorem, Iannizzotto and Squassina [22] proved the existence and multiplicity of solutions for (1.4). Utilizing the constrained variational methods and quantitative deformation lemma, Souza et al. [16] considered the least energy sign-changing solution of problem (1.4) involving exponential critical growth.
For problem (1.1) with exponential critical growth nonlinearity f, we would like to mention references [8,27,34]. In [27], by applying variational methods together with a suitable Trudinger-Moser inequality for fractional space, the authors obtained at least two positive solutions of (1.1). In [8], the authors considered problem (1.1) with a Choquard logarithmic term and exponential critical growth nonlinearity f. They proved the existence of infinite many solutions via genus theory. In [34], by using Ljusternik-Schnirelmann theory, Thin obtained the existence, multiplicity and concentration of nontrivial nonnegative solutions for problem (1.1). For more recent results on fractional equations involving exponential critical growth, see [8,15,16,22,27,31,34] and the references therein. We also refer the interested readers to [11,29] for general problems with Trudinger-Moser-type behavior.
Inspired by the works mentioned above, it is natural to ask whether problem (1.1) has sign-changing solutions when the nonlinearity f has exponential critical growth. To our knowledge, there are few works on it except [16]. Souza et al. [16] considered the case when N=1,p=2 and s=12. However, compared with [16], the situation when p>2 is quite different. In particular, the decomposition of functional I (see the definition in (1.8)) is more difficult than that in [16]. Therefore, some difficulties arise in studying the existence of a least energy sign-changing solution for problem (1.1), and this makes the study interesting.
In order to study problem (1.1), from now on, we fix p=Ns, p′=pp−1=NN−s and consider the following assumptions on V and f :
(V) V(x)∈C(RN) and there exists V0>0 such that V(x)≥V0 in RN. Moreover, lim|x|→∞V(x)=+∞;
(f1) The function f∈C1(R) with exponential critical growth at infinity, that is, there exists a constant α0>0 such that
lim|t|→∞|f(t)|exp(α|t|p′)=0 for α>α0andlim|t|→∞|f(t)|exp(α|t|p′)=∞ for α<α0; |
(f2) limt→0|f(t)||t|p−1=0;
(f3) There exists θ>p such that
0<θF(t)≤tf(t) for t∈R∖{0}, |
where F(t)=∫t0f(s)ds; (f4)
There are two constants q>p and γ>1 such that
sgn(t)f(t)≥γ|t|q−1 for t∈R; |
(f5) f(t)|t|p−1 is an increasing function of t∈R∖{0}.
Before stating our results, we recall some useful notations. The fractional Sobolev space Ws,p(RN), where p=Ns, is defined by
Ws,p(RN):={u∈Lp(RN):[u]s,p<∞}, | (1.5) |
where [u]s,p denotes Gagliardo seminorm, that is,
[u]s,p:=( ∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy)1p. |
Ws,p(RN) is a uniformly convex Banach space (see [18]) with norm
‖u‖Ws,p=(‖u‖pLp(RN)+[u]ps,p)1p. |
Let us consider the work space
X:={u∈Ws,p(RN):∫RNV(x)|u|pdx<+∞}, | (1.6) |
with the norm
‖u‖X:=([u]ps,p+∫RNV(x)|u|pdx)1p. |
X is a uniformly convex Banach space, and thus X is a reflexive space. By the condition (V), we have that the embedding from X into Ws,p(RN) is continuous.
Definition 1.1. We say that u∈X is a weak solution of problem (1.1) if
∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p−2(u(x)−u(y))(φ(x)−φ(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|u(x)|p−2u(x)φ(x)dx=∫RNf(u(x))φ(x)dx | (1.7) |
for all φ∈X.
Define the energy functional I:X→R associated with problem (1.1) by
I(u)=1p∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy+1p∫RNV(x)|u|pdx−∫RNF(u)dx. | (1.8) |
By the Trudinger-Moser type inequality in [23] (see Lemma 2.2), we prove that I(u)∈C1(X,R), and the critical point of functional I is a weak solution of problem (1.1) (see Remark 2.2 in Section 2).
For convenience, we consider the operator A:X→X∗ given by
⟨A(u),v⟩X∗,X=∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p−2(u(x)−u(y))(v(x)−v(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|u|p−2uvdx, ∀u,v∈X, | (1.9) |
where X∗ is the dual space of X. In the sequel, for simplicity, we denote ⟨⋅,⋅⟩X∗,X by ⟨⋅,⋅⟩. Moreover, we denote the Nehari set N associated with I by
N={u∈X∖{0}:⟨I′(u),u⟩=0}. | (1.10) |
Clearly, N contains all the nontrivial solutions of (1.1). Define u+(x):=max{u(x),0} and u−(x):=min{u(x),0}, and then the sign-changing solution of (1.1) stays on the following set:
M={u∈X∖{0}:u±≠0, ⟨I′(u),u+⟩=0, ⟨I′(u),u−⟩=0}. | (1.11) |
Set
c:=infu∈NI(u), | (1.12) |
and
m:=infu∈MI(u). | (1.13) |
Now, we can state our main results.
Theorem 1.1. Assume that (V) and (f1) to (f5) hold, and then problem (1.1) possesses a least energy sign-changing solution u∗∈X, provided that
γ>γ∗:=[θpmqθ−p(α0α∗)p−1]q−pp>0, |
where α∗ is a constant defined in Lemma 2.2,
mq=infu∈MqIq(u), Mq={u∈X:u±≠0,⟨I′q(u),u±⟩=0}, |
and
Iq(u)=1p‖u‖pX−1q∫RN|u|qdx. |
The proof of Theorem 1.1 is based on the arguments presented in [7]. We first check that the minimum of functional I restricted on set M can be achieved. Then, by using a suitable variant of the quantitative deformation Lemma, we show that it is a critical point of I. However, due to the nonlocal term
1p∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy, |
the functional I no longer satisfies the decompositions
I(u)=I(u+)+I(u−)and⟨I′(u),u±⟩=⟨I′(u±),u±⟩, | (1.14) |
which are very useful to get sign-changing solutions of problem (1.1) (see for instance [4,5,6,7,12]). In fact, due to the fractional p-Laplacian operator (−Δ)sp with s∈(0,1) and p≠2, one cannot obtain a similar equivalent definition of (−Δ)sp by the harmonic extension method (see [10]). In addition, compared with [16], problem (1.1) contains nonlocal operator (−Δ)sp with p>2, which brings some difficulties while studying problem (1.1). In particular, for problem (1.4), one has the following decomposition:
J(u)=J(u+)+J(u−)+∫R2N−u+(x)u−(y)−u−(x)u+(y)|x−y|N+2sdxdy,⟨J′(u),u+⟩=⟨J′(u+),u+⟩+∫R2N−u+(x)u−(y)−u−(x)u+(y)|x−y|N+2sdxdy, | (1.15) |
where J is the energy functional of (1.4). However, for the energy functional I, it is impossible to obtain a similar decomposition like (1.15) due to the nonlinearity of the operator (−Δ)sp. In order to overcome this difficulty, we divide R2N into several regions (see Lemma 2.6) and decompose functional I on each region carefully. Furthermore, another difficulty arises in verifying the compactness of the minimizing sequence in X since problem (1.1) involves the exponential critical nonlinearity term. Fortunately, thanks to the Trudinger-Moser inequality in [23], we overcome this difficulty by choosing γ in assumption (f4) appropriately large to ensure the compactness of the minimizing sequence. To achieve this, a more meticulous calculation is needed in estimating m.
On the other hand, by a similar argument in [13], we also consider the energy behavior of I(u∗) in the following theorem, where u∗ is the least energy sign-changing solution obtained in Theorem 1.1.
Theorem 1.2. Assume that (V) and (f1) to (f4) are satisfied. Then, c>0 is achieved, and
I(u∗)>2c, |
where u∗ is the least energy sign-changing solution obtained in Theorem 1.1.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 contains the variational setting of problem (1.1), and it establishes a version of the Trudinger-Moser inequality for (1.1). In Section 3, we give some technical lemmas which will be crucial in proving the main result. Finally, in Section 4, we combine the minimizing arguments with a variant of the Deformation Lemma and Brouwer degree theory to prove the main result.
Throughout this paper, we will use the following notations: Lλ(RN) denotes the usual Lebesgue space with norm |⋅|λ; C,C1,C2,⋯ will denote different positive constants whose exact values are not essential to the exposition of arguments.
In this section, we outline the variational framework for problem (1.1) and give some preliminary Lemmas. For convenience, we assume that V0=1 throughout this paper. Recalling the definition of fractional Sobolev space X in (1.6), we have the following compactness results.
Lemma 2.1. Suppose that (V) holds. Then, for all λ∈[p,∞), the embedding X↪Lλ(RN) is compact.
Proof. Define Y=Lλ(RN) and BR={x∈RN:|x|<R},BcR=RN∖¯BR. Let X(Ω) and Y(Ω) be the spaces of functions u∈X,u∈Y restricted onto Ω⊂RN respectively. Then, it follows from Theorems 6.9, 6.10 and 7.1 in [18] that X(BR)↪Y(BR) is compact for any R>0. Define VR=infx∈BcRV(x). By (V), we deduce that VR→∞ as R→∞. Therefore, when λ=Ns=p, we have
∫BcR|u|pdx≤1VR∫BcRV(x)|u|pdx≤1VR‖u‖pX, |
which implies
limR→+∞supu∈X∖{0}‖u‖Lp(BcR)‖u‖X=0. |
By virtue of Theorem 7.9 in [24], we can see that X↪Lp(RN) is compact.
When λ>p, by the interpolation inequality, one can also obtain that X↪Lλ(RN) is compact. This completes the proof.
To study problems involving exponential critical growth in the fractional Sobolev space, the main tool is the following fractional Trudinger-Moser inequality, and its proof can be found in Zhang [37]. First, to make the notation concise, we set, for α>0 and t∈R,
Φ(α,t)=exp(α|t|p′)−Skp−2(α,t), | (2.1) |
where Skp−2(α,t)=∑kp−2k=0αkk!|t|p′k with kp=min{k∈N;k≥p}.
Lemma 2.2. Let s∈(0,1) and sp = N. Then, there exists a positive constant α∗>0 such that
∫RNΦ(α,u)dx<+∞, ∀α∈(0,α∗), | (2.2) |
for all u∈Ws,p(RN) with ‖u‖Ws,p(RN)≤1.
For Φ(α,u), we also have the following properties, which have been proved in [8,27]. For the reader's convenience, we sketch the proof here.
Lemma 2.3. [27] Let α>0 and r>1. Then, for every β>r, there exists a constant C= C(β)>0 such that
(exp(α|t|p′)−Skp−2(α,t))r≤C(β)(exp(βα|t|p′)−Skp−2(βα,t)). |
Proof. Noticing that
(exp(α|t|p′)−Skp−2(α,t))rexp(βα|t|p′)−Skp−2(βα,t)=(∞∑j=kp−1αj|t|jp′j!)r∞∑j=kp−1(βα)j|t|jp′j!=|t|r(p−1)p′(∞∑j=kp−1αj|t|(j−p+1)p′j!)r|t|(p−1)p′∞∑j=kp−1(βα)j|t|(j−p+1)p′j!, |
we deduce
limt→0(exp(α|t|p′)−Skp−2(α,t))rexp(βα|t|p′)−Skp−2(βα,t)=0. |
On the other hand, it holds that
lim|t|→∞(exp(α|t|p′)−Sp−2(α,t))rexp(βα|t|p′)−Sp−2(βα,t)=lim|t|→∞exp(αr|t|p′)(1−Sp−2(α,t)(exp(α|t|))p′)rexp(βα|t|p′)(1−Sp−2(βα,t)exp(βα|t|p′))=0, | (2.3) |
and the lemma follows.
Lemma 2.4. [8] Let α>0. Then, Φ(α,u)∈L1(RN) for all u∈X.
Proof. Let u∈X∖{0} and ε>0. Since C∞0(RN) is dense in X, there exists ϕ∈C∞0(RN) such that 0<‖u−ϕ‖X<ε. Observe that for each k≥kp−1,
|u|p′k≤2p′kεp′k|u−ϕ‖u−ϕ‖X|p′k+2p′k|ϕ|p′k. |
Consequently,
Φ(α,u)≤Φ(α2p′εp′,|u−ϕ‖u−ϕ‖X|p′)+Φ(α2p′,|ϕ|p′). |
From Lemma 2.2, choosing ε>0 sufficiently small such that α2p′εp′<α∗, we have
∫RNΦ(α2p′εp′,|u−ϕ‖u−ϕ‖X|p′)dx<+∞. |
On the other side, since exp(α2p′|ϕ|p′)=∑+∞k=0αkk!2p′k|ϕ|p′k, there exists k0∈N such that ∑+∞k=k0αkk!2p′k|ϕ|p′k<ε. This fact, combined with the fact that p′k>0 for all kp−1≤k≤k0, gives us
∫RNΦ(α2p′,|ϕ|p′)dx=∫suppϕΦ(α2p′,|ϕ|p′)dx<+∞. |
Therefore, Φ(α,u)∈L1(RN) for all u∈X.
Remark 2.1. From Lemmas 2.2–2.4, we deduce that Φ(α,u)l∈L1(RN) for all u∈X, α>0 and l≥1.
The next lemma shows the growth behavior of the nonlinearity f.
Lemma 2.5. Given ε>0, α>α0 and ζ>p, for all u∈X, it holds that
|f(u)|≤ε|u|p−1+C1(ε)|u|ζ−1Φ(α,u), |
and
|F(u)|≤εp|u|p+C2(ε)|u|ζΦ(α,u). |
Proof. We will only prove the first result. Since the second inequality is a direct consequence of the first one due to assumption (f3), we omit it here.
In fact, by (f2), for given ε>0, there exists δ>0 such that |f(u)|≤ε|u|p−1 for all |u|<δ. Now, as ζ>p, there exists r>0 such that ζ=p+r. Hence, once zζ−1,zq′k for all k≥kp−1 and zr are increasing functions, if |u|>δ, it follows from (f1) that
|f(u)|≤ε|u|p−1+CεΦ(α,u)≤ε|u|p−1|u|rΦ(α,u)δrΦ(α,δ)+Cε|u|ζ−1δζ−1Φ(α,u)=C1(ε)|u|ζ−1Φ(α,u). |
This completes the proof.
Remark 2.2. It follows from Lemmas 2.1–2.3 that I is well-defined on X. Moreover, I∈C1(X,RN), and
⟨I′(u),v⟩=∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p−2(u(x)−u(y))(v(x)−v(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|u|p−2uvdx−∫RNf(u)vdx |
for all v∈X. Consequently, the critical point of I is the weak solution of problem (1.1).
We seek the sign-changing solution of problem (1.1). As we saw in Section 1, one of the difficulties is the fact that the functional I does not possess a decomposition like (1.14). Inspired by [13,35], we have the following:
Lemma 2.6. Let u∈X with u±≠0. Then,
(i) I(u)>I(u+)+I(u−),
(ii) ⟨I′(u),u±⟩>⟨I′(u±),u±⟩.
Proof. Observe that
I(u)=1p‖u‖pX−∫RNF(u)dx=1p⟨A(u),u⟩−∫RNF(u)dx=1p⟨A(u),u+⟩−∫RNF(u+)dx+1p⟨A(u),u−⟩−∫RNF(u−)dx. | (2.4) |
By density (see Di Nezza et al. Theorem 2.4 [18]), we can assume that u is continuous. Define
(RN)+={x∈RN;u+(x)≥0} and (RN)−={x∈RN;u−(x)≤0}. |
Then, for u∈X with u±≠0, by a straightforward computation, one can see that
⟨A(u),u+⟩=∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p−2(u(x)−u(y))(u+(x)−u+(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|u+|pdx =∫(RN)+×(RN)+|u+(x)−u+(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)+×(RN)−|u+(x)−u−(y)|p−1u+(x)|x−y|N+psdxdy +∫(RN)−×(RN)+|u−(x)−u+(y)|p−1u+(y)|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|u+|pdx =⟨A(u+),u+⟩+∫(RN)+×(RN)−|u+(x)−u−(y)|p−1u+(x)−|u+(x)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy +∫(RN)−×(RN)+|u−(x)−u+(y)|p−1u+(y)−|u+(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy>⟨A(u+),u+⟩. | (2.5) |
Similarly, we also have
⟨A(u),u−⟩>⟨A(u−),u−⟩. | (2.6) |
Taking into account (2.4)–(2.6), we deduce that I(u)>I(u+)+I(u−). Analogously, one can prove (ii).
In the last part of this section, we prove the following inequality, which will play an important role in estimating the upper bound for m:=infu∈MI(u).
Lemma 2.7. For all u∈X with u±≠0 and constants σ,τ>0, it holds that
‖σu++τu−‖pX≤σp⟨A(u),u+⟩+τp⟨A(u),u−⟩. | (2.7) |
Furthermore, the inequality in (2.7) is an equality if and only if σ=τ.
Proof. First, we claim the following elementary inequality holds true:
(σa+τb)p≤(a+b)p−1(σpa+τpb), | (2.8) |
where a,b≥0, σ,τ>0 and p=Ns>2.
Indeed, if a=0 or b=0, one can easily check (2.8). Thus, we can assume that a,b>0. Setting κ=aa+b and t=στ, (2.8) becomes
(κt+(1−κ))p≤κtp+(1−κ). | (2.9) |
Let us define g(t):=κtp+(1−κ)−(κt+(1−κ))p, and then g′(t)=κp[tp−1−(κt+(1−κ))p−1]. Noting that 0<κ<1, we can observe that g′(1)=0, g′(t)<0 for 0<t<1, and g′(t)>0 for t>1. Therefore, g(t)>g(1)=0 for all t>0 and t≠1, which implies (2.9). Consequently, (2.8) holds true.
Now, let us consider the inequality (2.7). By a straightforward computation, one can see from (2.8) that
‖σu++τu−‖pX−σp⟨A(u),u+⟩−τp⟨A(u),u−⟩=∫(RN)+×(RN)−|σu+(x)−τu−(y)|p−|u+(x)−u−(y)|p−1(σpu+(x)−τpu−(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)−×(RN)+|τu−(x)−σu+(y)|p−|u−(x)−u+(y)|p−1(τp(−u−(x))+σpu+(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy≤0, |
which implies (2.7), and Lemma 2.7 follows.
The aim of this section is to prove some technical lemmas related to the existence of a least energy nodal solution. Firstly, we collect some preliminary lemmas which will be fundamental to prove our main result.
Lemma 3.1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, we have
(i) For all u∈N such that ‖u‖X→∞, I(u)→∞;
(ii) There exist ρ,μ>0 such that ‖u±‖X≥ρ for all u∈M and ‖u‖X>μ for all u∈N.
Proof. (i) Since u∈N and (f3) holds, we see that
I(u)=I(u)−1θ⟨I′(u),u⟩≥(1p−1θ)‖u‖pX. | (3.1) |
Hence, the above inequality ensures that I(u)→∞ as ‖u‖X→∞.
(ii) We claim that there exists μ>0, such that ‖u‖X>μ for all u∈N. By contradiction, we suppose that there exists a sequence {un}⊂N such that ‖un‖X→0 in X.
Then, it follows from Lemmas 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 and Hölder's inequality that
‖un‖pX=∫RNf(un)undx≤ε∫RN|un|pdx+C1(ε)∫RN|un|ζΦ(α,un)dx≤ε‖un‖pX+C1(ε)(∫RN|un|ζr′dx)1r′(∫RNΦ(α,un)rdx)1r=ε‖un‖pX+C2(ε)(∫RNΦ(α,un)rdx)1r‖un‖ζX, | (3.2) |
where α>α0, ζ>p and r>1 with 1r+1r′=1.
On the other hand, since ‖un‖X→0, there exists N0∈N and ϑ>0 such that ‖un‖p′X<ϑ<α∗α0 for all n>N0. Choosing α>α0, r>1 and β>r satisfying αϑ<α∗ and βαϑ<α∗, for all n>N0, we deduce from Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3 that
∫RNΦ(α,un)rdx=∫RN(exp(α|un|p′)−Skp−2(α,un))rdx=∫RN(exp(α‖un‖p′X(un‖un‖X)p′)−Skp−2(α‖un‖p′X,un‖un‖X))rdx≤C∫RN(exp(βαϑ(un‖un‖X)p′)−Skp−2(βαϑ,un‖un‖X))dx≤C. | (3.3) |
Combining (3.3) with (3.2), and choosing ε=12 in (3.2), we can see that
‖un‖pX≤C′‖un‖ζX, | (3.4) |
where C′ is a constant independent of n. Obviously, (3.4) contradicts with ‖un‖X→0, and we have proved the claim.
For un∈M, we have ⟨I′(un),u±n⟩=0. Hence, it follows from Lemma 2.6 that
⟨I′(u±n),u±n⟩<0, |
which implies
‖u±n‖pX<∫RNf(u±n)u±ndx. |
By arguments as with (3.2) and (3.3), we deduce that there exist ρ1,ρ2>0 such that ‖u+n‖X>ρ1 and ‖u−n‖X>ρ2. Select ρ=min(ρ1,ρ2), and then ‖u±n‖X>ρ, and this completes the proof.
Lemma 3.2. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, for any u∈X∖{0}, there exists a unique νu∈R+ such that νuu∈N. Moreover, for any u∈N, we have
I(u)=maxν∈[0,∞)I(νuu). | (3.5) |
Proof. Given u∈X∖{0}, we define g(ν)=I(νu) for all ν≥0, i.e.,
g(ν)=1pνp‖u‖pX−∫RNF(νu)dx. |
It follows from (f2) and (f4) that the function g(ν) possesses a global maximum point νu, and g′(νu)=0, i.e.,
νp−1u‖u‖pX=∫RNf(νuu)udx, | (3.6) |
which implies νuu∈N. Now, we claim the uniqueness of νu. Suppose, on the contrary, there exists ˜νu≠νu such that ˜νuu∈N. Then, it holds that
˜νp−1u‖u‖pX=∫RNf(˜νuu)udx. | (3.7) |
Without loss of generality, we may assume ˜νu>νu. Combining (3.6), (3.7) and (f5), we deduce that
0=∫{x∈RN: u(x)≠0}(f(˜νuu)|˜νuu|p−1−f(νuu)|νuu|p−1)|u|p−1udx>0, |
which leads to a contradiction. Thus, νu is unique. Obviously, for any u∈N, νu=1, and (3.5) follows. This completes our proof.
Since we are considering the constrained minimization problem on M, in the following, we will show that the set M is nonempty.
Lemma 3.3. If u∈X with u±≠0, then there exists a unique pair (σu,τu) of positive numbers such that
(⟨I′(σuu++τuu−),u+⟩,⟨I′(σuu++τuu−),u−⟩)=(0,0). |
Consequently, σuu++τuu−∈M.
Proof. Let G:(0,+∞)×(0,+∞)→R2 be a continuous vector field given by
G(σ,τ)=(⟨I′(σu++τu−),σu+⟩,⟨I′(σu++τu−),τu−⟩) |
for every (σ,τ)∈(0,+∞)×(0,+∞). By virtue of Lemmas 2.5 and 2.6, we deduce that
⟨I′(σu++τu−),σu+⟩≥⟨I′(σu+),σu+⟩=σp‖u+‖pX−∫RNf(σu+)σu+dx≥σp‖u+‖pX−εσp∫RN|u+|pdx−Cε∫RN|σu+|ζΦ(α,σu+)dx, | (3.8) |
where α>α0 and ζ>q. Choose ε=12, σ small enough such that ‖σu+‖p′X<α∗α0. Taking into account (3.8) and arguing as with (3.3) in Lemma 3.1, one can see that
⟨I′(σu++τu−),σu+⟩≥12σp‖u+‖pX−C1σζ‖u+‖ζX, | (3.9) |
and similarly
⟨I′(σu++τu−),τu−⟩≥12τp‖u−‖pX−C2τζ‖u−‖ζX. | (3.10) |
Hence, it follows from (3.9) and (3.10) that there exists R1>0 small enough such that
⟨I′(R1u++τu−),R1u+⟩>0 for all τ>0, | (3.11) |
and
⟨I′(σu++R1u−),R1u−⟩>0 for all σ>0. | (3.12) |
On the other hand, by (f3), there exist constants D1,D2>0 such that
F(t)≥D1tθ−D2 for all t>0. | (3.13) |
Then, we have
⟨I′(σu++τu−),σu+⟩≤σp∫(RN)+×(RN)+|u+(x)−u+(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)+×(RN)−|σu+(x)−τu−(y)|p−1σu+(x)|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)−×(RN)+|τu−(x)−σu+(y)|p−1σu+(y)|x−y|N+psdxdy+σp∫RNV(x)|u+|pdx−D1σθ∫A+|u+|θdx+D2|A+|, | (3.14) |
where A+⊂supp(u+) is a measurable set with finite and positive measure |A+|. Due to the fact that θ>p, for R2 sufficiently large, we get
⟨I′(R2u++τu−),R2u+⟩<0 for all τ∈[R1,R2]. | (3.15) |
Similarly, we get
⟨I′(σu++R2u−),R2u−⟩<0 for all σ∈[R1,R2]. | (3.16) |
Hence, taking into account (3.6), (3.7), (3.15), (3.16) and thanks to the Miranda theorem [28], there exists (σu,τu)∈[R1,R2]×[R1,R2] such that G(σu,τu)=0, which implies σuu++τuu−∈M.
Now, we are in the position to prove the uniqueness of the pair (σu,τu). First, we assume that u=u++u−∈M and (σu,τu)∈(0,+∞)×(0,∞) is another pair such that σuu++τuu−∈M. In this case, we just need to prove that (σu,τu)=(1,1). Notice that
⟨A(u),u+⟩=∫RNf(u+)u+dx, ⟨A(u),u−⟩=∫RNf(u−)u−dx, | (3.17) |
and
⟨A(σuu++τuu−),σuu+⟩=∫RNf(σuu+)σuu+dx, ⟨A(σuu++τuu−),τuu−⟩=∫RNf(τuu−)τuu−dx. | (3.18) |
Without loss of generality, we may assume σu≤τu. Then, by a direct computation, one has
⟨A(σuu++τuu−),σuu+⟩=∫(RN)+×(RN)+|σuu+(x)−σuu+(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)+×(RN)−|σuu+(x)−τuu−(y)|p−1σuu+(x)|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)−×(RN)+|τuu−(x)−σuu+(y)|p−1σuu+(y)|x−y|N+psdxdy≥⟨A(σuu++σuu−),σuu+⟩=σpu⟨A(u),u+⟩, | (3.19) |
which together with (3.18) implies
σpu⟨A(u),u+⟩≤∫RNf(σuu+)σuu+dx. | (3.20) |
Combining (3.20) with (3.17), we deduce that
∫{x∈RN:u+(x)≠0}(f(σuu+)(σuu+)p−1−f(u+)(u+)p−1)(u+)pdx≥0. |
Hence, by (f5) and since u+≠0, we obtain σu≥1. Moreover, using similar arguments as in (3.19), we can deduce that
⟨A(σuu++τuu−),τuu−⟩≤⟨A(τuu++τuu−),τuu−⟩. | (3.21) |
Therefore, it follows from (3.17), (3.18) and (3.21) that
∫{x∈RN: u−(x)≠0}(f(τuu−)(τuu−)p−1−f(u−)(u−)p−1)(u−)pdx≤0, |
which together with (f5) implies τu≤1. Thus, we conclude the proof of the uniqueness of the pair (1,1).
For the general case, we suppose that u does not necessarily belong to M. Let (σu,τu), (σ′u,τ′u)∈(0,+∞)×(0,∞). We define v=v++v− with v+=σuu+ and v−=τuu−. Therefore, we have v∈M and σ′uσuv++τ′uτuv−∈M, which implies (σu,τu)=(σ′u,τ′u), and this completes the proof.
The following two lemmas will be useful in proving Theorem 1.1.
Lemma 3.4. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, and let u∈X with u±≠0 such that ⟨I′(u),u±⟩≤0. Then, the unique pair of positive numbers obtained in Lemma 3.3 satisfies 0<σu,τu≤1.
Proof. Here we will only prove 0<σu≤1. The proof of 0<τu≤1 is analogous, and we omit it here. Since ⟨I′(u),u+⟩≤0, it holds that
⟨A(u),u+⟩≤∫RNf(u+)u+dx. | (3.22) |
Without loss of generality, we can assume that σu≥τu>0, and σuu++τuu−∈M. Therefore, utilizing a similar argument as in (3.19), we deduce that
σpu⟨A(u),u+⟩=⟨A(σuu++σuu−),σuu+⟩≥⟨A(σuu++τuu−),σuu+⟩=∫RNf(σuu+)σuu+dx. | (3.23) |
Taking into account (3.22) and (3.23), we obtain
∫RN(f(σuu+)(σuu+)p−1−f(u+)(u+)p−1)(u+)pdx≤0, |
which together with assumption (f5) and the fact u+≠0 shows that σu≤1. Hence, we finish the proof.
Lemma 3.5. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, let u∈X with u±≠0 and (σu,τu) be the unique pair of positive numbers obtained in Lemma 3.3. Then, (σu,τu) is the unique maximum point of the function hu:[0,+∞)×[0,+∞)→R given by
hu(σ,τ):=I(σu++τu−). |
Proof. In the demonstration of Lemma 3.3, we saw that (σu,τu) is the unique critical point of hu in (0,+∞)×(0,+∞). In addition, by the definition of hu and (3.13), we have
hu(σ,τ)=I(σu++τu−)≤1p‖σu++τu−‖pX−D1σθ∫A+|u+|θdx−D1τθ∫A−|τu−|θdx+D2(|A+|+|A−|), |
where A+⊂supp(u+) and A−⊂supp(u−) are measurable sets with finite and positive measures |A+| and |A−|. Since θ>p, we conclude that hu(σ,τ)→−∞ as |(σ,τ)|→∞. In particular, one can easily check that there exists R>0 such that hu(a,b)<hu(σu,τu) for all (a,b)∈ (0,∞)×(0,∞)∖¯BR(0), where ¯BR(0) is a closure of the ball of radius R in R2.
To end the proof, we just need to verify that the maximum of hu does not occur in the boundary of [0,+∞)×[0,+∞). Suppose, by contradiction, that (0,b) is a maximum point of hu. Then, for a>0 small enough, one can see from (3.9) that hu(a,0)=I(au+)>0. Hence, it follows from Lemma 2.6 that
hu(a,b)=I(au++bu−)>I(au+)+I(bu−)>hu(0,b), |
for a>0 small enough. However, this contradicts with the assumption that (0,b) is a maximum point of hu. The case (a,0) is similar, and we complete the proof.
Since Lemma 3.3 shows M is nonempty, and Lemma 3.1 implies that I(u)>0 for all u∈M, I is bounded below in M, which means that m:=infu∈MI(u) is well-defined. Now, we shall prove an upper bound for m to recover the compactness, which urges us to prove that m can be achieved.
Lemma 3.6. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 and that θ is the constant given by (f3),
0<m<θ−pθp(α∗α0)p−1. | (3.24) |
Proof. Due to M⊂N, we have m≥c:=infu∈NI(u). Moreover, for all u∈N, by Lemma 3.1 it holds that
I(u)≥(1p−1θ)‖u‖pX≥θ−pθpμp>0. | (3.25) |
On the other hand, by the similar procedure used in [13], there exists w∈Mq with w±≠0, such that Iq(w)=mq and ⟨I′q(w),w±⟩=0. Therefore, it holds that
1p‖w‖pX−1q|w|qq=mq and ⟨A(w),w±⟩=|w±|qq. | (3.26) |
In addition, by virtue of Lemma 3.3, there exist σ,τ>0 such that σw++τw−∈M. Therefore, it holds that
m≤I(σw++τw−)=1p‖σw++τw−‖pX−∫RNF(σw++τw−)dx, |
which together with (f4) implies that
m≤1p‖σw++τw−‖pX−γqσq|w+|qq−γqτq|w−|qq. |
Now, from (3.26) and thanks to Lemma 2.7, we conclude that
m≤1pσp⟨A(w),w+⟩+1pτp⟨A(w),w−⟩−γqσq|w+|qq−γqτq|w−|qq+1p(‖σw++τw−‖pX−σp⟨A(w),w+⟩−τp⟨A(w),w−⟩)≤(1pσp−γqσq)|w+|qq+(1pτp−γqτq)|w−|qq≤maxξ≥0(1pξp−γqξq)|w|qq=(1p−1q)γpp−q|w|qq=γpp−qmq. |
Therefore, by the definition of γ in Theorem 1.1, we obtain (3.24).
Lemma 3.7. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, let {un}⊂M be a minimizing sequence for m, and then
∫RNf(u±n)u±ndx→∫RNf(u±)u±dx as n→∞, | (3.27) |
and
∫RNF(u±n)dx→∫RNF(u±)dx as n→∞ | (3.28) |
hold for some u∈X.
Proof. We will only prove the first result, since the second limit is a direct consequence of the first one. Since {un}⊂M is a minimizing sequence for m, I(un)→m, and it follows from (3.25) that
‖un‖pX≤θpθ−pI(un), | (3.29) |
which implies {un} is bounded in X. Then, by virtue of Lemma 2.1, up to a subsequence, there exists u∈X such that
un⇀u in X,un→u in Lλ(RN) for λ∈[p,+∞),un→u a.e. in RN. | (3.30) |
Hence,
u±n⇀u± in X,u±n→u± in Lλ(RN) for λ∈[p,+∞),u±n→u± a.e. in RN. | (3.31) |
Moreover, utilizing (3.29) again, we deduce that there exist n0∈N and ϑ>0 such that ‖un‖p′X<ϑ<α∗α0 for n>n0. Choose α>α0, r>1 and close to 1, and β>r satisfying αϑ<α∗ and βαϑ<α∗, and then for all n>n0, it follows from Lemmas 2.2 and (3) that
∫RNΦ(α,un)rdx=∫RN(exp(α|un|p′)−Skp−2(α,un))rdx=∫RN(exp(α‖un‖p′X(un‖un‖X)p′)−Skp−2(α‖un‖p′X,un‖un‖X))rdx≤C∫RN(exp(βαϑ(un‖un‖X)p′)−Skp−2(βαϑ,un‖un‖X))≤C, | (3.32) |
where C is a constant independent of n. Thus, by virtue of Lemma 2.5 and Hölder's inequality, for every Lebesgue measurable set A⊂RN and n>n0, it holds that
|∫Af(un)undx|≤C1∫A|un|pdx+C2∫A|un|ζΦ(α,un)dx≤C1∫A|un|pdx+C2(∫A|un|ζr′dx)1r′(∫AΦ(α,un)rdx)1r=C1∫A|un|pdx+C2C1r(∫A|un|ζr′dx)1r′. | (3.33) |
Due to (3.33) and the fact that u±n→u± in Lp(RN) and Lζr′(RN), we conclude that for any ε>0 and n>n0, there exists δ>0 such that for every Lebesgue measurable set A⊂RN with meas(A)≤δ, it holds that
|∫Af(u±n)u±ndx|<ε. | (3.34) |
Similarly, for any ε>0 and n>n0, there exists R>0 such that
| ∫RN∖BR(0)f(u±n)u±ndx|<ε. | (3.35) |
Therefore, by (3.31), (3.34), (3.35) and thanks to Vitali's convergence theorem, one can prove
∫RNf(u±n)u±ndx→∫RNf(u±)u±dx as n→∞. | (3.36) |
Thus, we finish the proof.
In this section, we will prove Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. To this end, we consider the minimization problem
m:=infu∈MI(u). |
Firstly, let us start with the existence of a minimizer u∗∈M of I.
Lemma 4.1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, the infimum m is achieved.
Proof. By using Lemma 3.1, we know that there exists a minimizing sequence {un}n⊂M bounded in X, such that
I(un)→m as n→∞. | (4.1) |
Without loss of generality, we may assume up to a subsequence that there exists u∗ such that
u±n⇀(u∗)± in X,u±n→(u∗)± in Lλ(RN) for all λ∈[p,+∞),u±n→(u∗)± a.e. in RN. |
Then, by Lemmas 2.6, 3.1 and 3.7, we conclude that
ρp≤lim infn→∞‖u±n‖pX≤lim infn→∞⟨A(un),u±n⟩=lim infn→∞∫RNf(u±n)u±ndx=∫RNf((u∗)±)(u∗)±dx, |
which implies (u∗)±≠0, and consequently u∗=(u∗)++(u∗)− is sign-changing. Hence, by Lemma 3.3, there exist σ,τ>0 such that
⟨I′(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−),(u∗)+⟩=0,⟨I′(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−),(u∗)−⟩=0. | (4.2) |
Now, we claim that σ=τ=1. Indeed, since un∈M, ⟨I′(un),u±n⟩=0, i.e.,
‖u+n‖pX+∫(RN)+n×(RN)−n(|u+n(x)−u−n(y)|p−1u+n(x)|x−y|N+ps−|u+n(x)|p|x−y|N+ps)dxdy+∫(RN)−n×(RN)+n(|u−n(x)−u+n(y)|p−1u+n(y)|x−y|N+ps−|u+n(y)|p|x−y|N+ps)dxdy=∫RNf(u+n)u+ndx, | (4.3) |
and
‖u−n‖pX+∫(RN)−n×(RN)+n(|u−n(x)−u+n(y)|p−1(−u−n(x))|x−y|N+ps−|u−n(x)|p|x−y|N+ps)dxdy+∫(RN)+n×(RN)−n(|u+n(x)−u−n(y)|p−1(−u−n(y))|x−y|N+ps−|u−n(y)|p|x−y|N+ps)dxdy=∫RNf(u−n)u−ndx, | (4.4) |
where (RN)+n:={x∈RN:un(x)≥0} and (RN)−n:={x∈RN:un(x)≤0}. Notice the functional ‖u‖pX is weakly lower semicontinuous on X, and we see that
‖(u∗)±‖pX≤lim infn→∞‖u±n‖pX. | (4.5) |
Moreover, it follows from Lemma 3.7 that
∫RNf(u±n)u±ndx→∫RNf((u∗)±)(u∗)±dx as n→∞. | (4.6) |
Taking into account (4.3)–(4.6) and thanks to Fatou's lemma, we deduce that
⟨I′(u∗),(u∗)+⟩≤0 and ⟨I′(u∗),(u∗)−⟩≤0, | (4.7) |
which together with Lemma 3.4 implies that 0<σ,τ≤1. In the following, we will show that σ=τ=1, and I(u∗)=m. In fact, by (4.2), (f5), Fatou's lemma and the definition of M, one has
m≤I(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−)=I(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−)−1p⟨I′(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−),(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−)⟩=∫RN[1pf(σ(u∗)+)σ(u∗)+−F(σ(u∗)+)]dx+∫RN[1pf(τ(u∗)−)τ(u∗)−−F(τ(u∗)−)]dx≤∫RN[1pf((u∗)+)(u∗)+−F((u∗)+)]dx+∫RN[1pf((u∗)−)(u∗)−−F((u∗)−)]dx≤lim infn→∞[I(un)−1p⟨I′(un),un⟩]=limn→∞I(un)=m. | (4.8) |
Let us observe that by the above calculation we can infer that σ=τ=1. Thus, u∗∈M, and I(u∗)=m.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1.1. The proof is based on the quantitative deformation lemma and Brouwer degree theory. For more details, we refer to the arguments used in [7].
Proof of Theorem 1.1. We assume by contradiction that I′(u∗)≠0. Then, there exist δ,κ>0 such that
|I′(v)|≥κ, for all ‖v−u∗‖X≤3δ. |
Define D:=[1−δ1,1+δ1]×[1−δ1,1+δ1] and a map ξ:D→X by
ξ(σ,τ):=σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−, |
where δ1∈(0,12) small enough such that ‖ξ(σ,τ)−u∗‖X≤3δ for all (σ,τ)∈ˉD. Thus, by virtue of Lemma 4.1, we can see that
I(ξ(1,1))=m, I(ξ(σ,τ))<m for all (σ,τ)∈D∖{(1,1)}. |
Therefore,
β:=max(σ,τ)∈∂DI(ξ(σ,τ))<m. |
By using [36,Theorem 2.3] with
Sδ:={v∈X:‖v−u∗‖X≤δ} |
and c:=m. By choosing ε:=min{m−β4,κδ8}, we deduce that there exists a deformation η∈C([0,1]×X,X) such that:
(i) η(t,v)=v if v∉I−1([m−2ε,m+2ε]); (ii) I(η(1,v))≤m−ε for each v∈X with ‖v−u∗‖X≤δ and I(v)≤m+ε; (iii) I(η(1,v))≤I(v) for all u∈X.
By (ii) and (iii) we conclude that
max(σ,τ)∈¯DI(η(1,ξ(σ,τ)))<m. | (4.9) |
Therefore, to complete the proof of this Lemma, it suffices to prove that
η(1,ξ(¯D))∩M≠∅. | (4.10) |
Indeed, if (4.10) holds true, then by the definition of m and (4.9), we get a contradiction.
In the following, we will prove (4.10). To this end, let us define Ψu∗:[0,+∞)×[0,+∞)→R2 by
Ψu∗(σ,τ):=(Ψu∗1(σ,τ),Ψu∗2(σ,τ))=(⟨I′(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−),(u∗)+⟩,⟨I′(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−),(u∗)−⟩). |
Furthermore, for (σ,τ)∈¯D, we define
˜Ψ(σ,τ):=(1σ⟨I′(η(1,ξ(σ,τ))),η+(1,ξ(σ,τ))⟩,1τ⟨I′(η(1,ξ(σ,τ))),η−(1,ξ(σ,τ))⟩). |
Since η(1,ξ(σ,τ))=ξ(σ,τ) on ∂D, by the Brouwer degree theory (see Theorem D.9 [36]), we have
deg(˜Ψ,D,0)=deg(Ψu∗,D,0). | (4.11) |
Now, we assert that deg(Ψu∗,D,0)=1. If this assertion holds true, then ˜Ψ(σ0,τ0)=0 for some (σ0,τ0)∈D. Thus, there exists u0:=η(1,ξ(σ0,τ0))∈M and (4.10) follows.
In fact, let us first define
Ap:=∫R2N|u∗(x)−u∗(y)|p−2|(u∗)+(x)−(u∗)+(y)|2|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|(u∗)+|pdx,Bp:=∫R2N|u∗(x)−u∗(y)|p−2|(u∗)−(x)−(u∗)−(y)|2|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|(u∗)−|pdx,Cp:=∫R2N|u∗(x)−u∗(y)|p−2((u∗)−(x)−(u∗)−(y))((u∗)+(x)−(u∗)+(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy,Dp:=∫R2N|u∗(x)−u∗(y)|p−2((u∗)+(x)−(u∗)+(y))((u∗)−(x)−(u∗)−(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy,a1:=∫RNf′((u∗)+)|(u∗)+|2dx, a2:=∫RNf((u∗)+)(u∗)+dx,b1:=∫RNf′((u∗)−)|(u∗)−|2dx, b2:=∫RNf((u∗)−)(u∗)−dx. |
Clearly, Cp=Dp>0, Ap,Bp>0. Notice that u∈M, and we can see that
Ap+Cp=a2,Bp+Dp=b2. | (4.12) |
Moreover, (f5) guarantees
a1>(p−1)a2,b1>(p−1)b2. | (4.13) |
Then, by a direct computation, we have
∂Ψu∗1∂σ(1,1)=(p−1)Ap−a1<0, | (4.14) |
and
∂Ψu∗2∂τ(1,1)=(p−1)Bp−b1<0. | (4.15) |
In addition,
∂Ψu∗1∂τ(1,1)=∂Ψu∗2∂σ(1,1)=(p−1)Cp=(p−1)Dp. | (4.16) |
Taking advantage of (4.12)–(4.16), we deduce that
det(Ψu∗)′(1,1)=[(p−1)Ap−a1][(p−1)Bp−b1]−(p−1)2CpDp>[(p−1)a2−(p−1)Ap][(p−1)b2−(p−1)Bp]−(p−1)2CpDp=(p−1)2CpDp−(p−1)2CpDp=0. | (4.17) |
Notice that u∗∈M, and thanks to Lemmas 3.3 and 3.5, it holds that
deg(Ψu∗,D,0)=sgn(det(Ψu∗)′(1,1))=1, |
which together with (4.11) implies deg(Ψu∗,D,0)=1. This completes our proof.
Lemma 4.2. For any v∈M, there exist ˜σv,˜τv∈(0,1) such that ˜σvv+,˜τvv−∈N.
Proof. We just prove ˜σv∈(0,1). The other case can be obtained by similar arguments. Since v∈M, i.e., ⟨I′(v),v+⟩=0, by Lemma 2.6, we obtain
‖v+‖pX<∫RNf(v+)v+dx. | (4.18) |
On the other hand, by Lemma 3.2, there exists ˜σv>0 such that ˜σvv+∈N, which implies that
˜σpv‖v+‖pX=∫RNf(˜σvv+)˜σvv+dx. | (4.19) |
Taking into account (4.9) and (4.10), we deduce that
∫RN[f(v+)(v+)p−1−f(˜σvv+)(˜σvv+)p−1](˜σvv+)pdx>0. |
Thus, it follows from (f4) that ˜σv<1.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. Using a similar idea from the proof of Lemma 4.1, we find ˉu∈N such that I(ˉu)=c>0, where c:=infu∈NI(u). Furthermore, utilizing the same steps of the proof of Theorem 1.1, we show that I′(ˉu)=0. Thus, ˉu is a ground state solution of problem (1.1). Hence, to complete the proof of Theorem 1.2, we need to study the energy behavior of I(u∗), where u∗ is the sign-changing solution of (1.1) obtained in Theorem 1.1.
In fact, by Lemma 4.2, there exist 0<˜σu∗,˜τu∗<1 such that ˜σu∗(u∗)+,˜τu∗(u∗)−∈N. Therefore, we deduce from (f5) and Lemma 3.2 that
m=I(u∗)=I(u∗)−1p⟨I′(u∗),u∗⟩=∫RN(1pf(u∗)u∗−F(u∗))dx>∫RN(1pf(˜σu∗(u∗)+)˜σu∗(u∗)+−F(˜σu∗(u∗)+))dx+∫RN(1pf(˜τu∗(u∗)−)˜τu∗(u∗)−−F(˜τu∗(u∗)−))dx=I(˜σu∗(u∗)+)−1p⟨I′(˜σu∗(u∗)+),˜σu∗(u∗)+⟩+I(˜τu∗(u∗)−)−1p⟨I′(˜τu∗(u∗)−),˜τu∗(u∗)−⟩=I(˜σu∗(u∗)+)+I(˜τu∗(u∗)−)≥2c, |
which completes the proof of Theorem 1.2.
This manuscript has employed the variational method to study the fractional p-Laplacian equation involving Trudinger-Moser nonlinearity. By using the constrained variational methods, quantitative Deformation Lemma and Brouwer degree theory, we prove the existence of least energy sign-changing solutions for the problem.
K. Cheng was supported by the Jiangxi Provincial Natural Science Foundation (20202BABL211005), W. Huang was supported by the Jiangxi Provincial Natural Science Foundation (20202BABL211004), and L. Wang was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12161038) and the Science and Technology project of Jiangxi provincial Department of Education (Grant No. GJJ212204).
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
V. Ambrosio, Multiplicity of positive solutions for a class of fractional Schrödinger equations via penalization method, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 196 (2017), 2043–2062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10231-017-0652-5 doi: 10.1007/s10231-017-0652-5
![]() |
[2] |
V. Ambrosio, T. Isernia, Multiplicity and concentration results for some nonlinear Schrödinger equations with the fractional p-Laplacian, Discrete Cont. Dyn., 38 (2018), 5835–5881. https://doi.org/10.3934/dcds.2018254 doi: 10.3934/dcds.2018254
![]() |
[3] |
V. Ambrosio, T. Isernia, Sign-changing solutions for a class of schrödinger equations with vanishing potentials, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur., 29 (2018), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.4171/RLM/797 doi: 10.4171/RLM/797
![]() |
[4] |
S. Barile, G. Figueiredo, Existence of least energy positive, negative and nodal solutions for a class of p&q-problems with potentials vanishing at infinity, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 427 (2015), 1205–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2015.02.086 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2015.02.086
![]() |
[5] |
T. Bartsch, Z. Liu, T. Weth, Sign changing solutions of superlinear Schrödinger equations, Commun. Part. Diff. Eq., 29 (2005), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1081/PDE-120028842 doi: 10.1081/PDE-120028842
![]() |
[6] |
T. Bartsch, T. Weth, Three nodal solutions of singularly perturbed elliptic equations on domains without topology, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, 22 (2005), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2004.07.005 doi: 10.1016/j.anihpc.2004.07.005
![]() |
[7] |
T. Bartsch, T. Weth, M. Willem, Partial symmetry of least energy nodal solutions to some variational problems, J. Anal. Math., 96 (2005), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02787822 doi: 10.1007/BF02787822
![]() |
[8] |
E. Böer, O. Miyagaki, Existence and multiplicity of solutions for the fractional p-Laplacian Choquard logarithmic equation involving a nonlinearity with exponential critical and subcritical growth, J. Math. Phys., 62 (2021), 051507. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0041474 doi: 10.1063/5.0041474
![]() |
[9] |
X. Cabré, Y. Sire, Nonlinear equations for fractional Laplacians, Ⅰ: regularity, maximum principles, and Hamiltonian estimates, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, 31 (2014), 23–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2013.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.anihpc.2013.02.001
![]() |
[10] |
L. Caffarelli, L. Silvestre, An extension problem related to the fractional laplacian, Commun. Part. Diff. Eq., 32 (2007), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605300600987306 doi: 10.1080/03605300600987306
![]() |
[11] |
D. Cao, Nontrivial solution of semilinear elliptic equation with critical exponent in R2, Commun. Part. Diff. Eq., 17 (1992), 407–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605309208820848 doi: 10.1080/03605309208820848
![]() |
[12] |
A. Castro, J. Cossio, J. Neuberger, A sign-changing solution for a superlinear Dirichlet problem, Rocky Mountain J. Math., 27 (1997), 1041–1053. https://doi.org/10.1216/rmjm/1181071858 doi: 10.1216/rmjm/1181071858
![]() |
[13] |
X. Chang, Z. Nie, Z. Wang, Sign-changing solutions of fractional p-laplacian problems, Adv. Nonlinear Stud., 19 (2019), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/ans-2018-2032 doi: 10.1515/ans-2018-2032
![]() |
[14] |
X. Chang, Z. Wang, Nodal and multiple solutions of nonlinear problems involving the fractional Laplacian, J. Differ. Equations, 256 (2014), 2965–2992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2014.01.027 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2014.01.027
![]() |
[15] |
M. de Souza, On a class of nonhomogeneous fractional quasilinear equations in RN with exponential growth, Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl., 22 (2015), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00030-014-0293-y doi: 10.1007/s00030-014-0293-y
![]() |
[16] |
M. de Souza, U. Severo, T. do Rêgo, Nodal solutions for fractional elliptic equations involving exponential critical growth, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 43 (2020), 3650–3672. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.6145 doi: 10.1002/mma.6145
![]() |
[17] |
A. Di Castro, T. Kuusi, G. Palatucci, Local behavior of fractional p-minimizers, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, 33 (2016), 1279–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2015.04.003 doi: 10.1016/j.anihpc.2015.04.003
![]() |
[18] |
E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, E. Valdinoci, Hitchhiker's guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math., 136 (2012), 521–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bulsci.2011.12.004 doi: 10.1016/j.bulsci.2011.12.004
![]() |
[19] |
P. Felmer, A. Quaas, J. Tan, Positive solutions of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with the fractional Laplacian, P. Roy. Soc. Edinb. A, 142 (2012), 1237–1262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0308210511000746 doi: 10.1017/S0308210511000746
![]() |
[20] | G. Franzina, G. Palatucci, Fractional p-eigenvalues, Riv. Mat. Uni. Parma, 5 (2014), 373–386. |
[21] |
A. Iannizzotto, S. Liu, K. Perera, M. Squassina, Existence results for fractional p-Laplacian problems via Morse theory, Adv. Calc. Var., 9 (2016), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1515/acv-2014-0024 doi: 10.1515/acv-2014-0024
![]() |
[22] |
A. Iannizzotto, M. Squassina, 1/2-Laplacian problems with exponential nonlinearity, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 414 (2014), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2013.12.059 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2013.12.059
![]() |
[23] |
H. Kozono, T. Sato, H. Wadade, Upper bound of the best constant of a Trudinger-Moser inequality and its application to a Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, Indiana Univ. Math. J., 55 (2006), 1951–1974. https://doi.org/10.1512/iumj.2006.55.2743 doi: 10.1512/iumj.2006.55.2743
![]() |
[24] | I. Kuzin, S. Pohozaev, Entire solutions of semilinear elliptic equations, Basel: Birkhäuser, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-9250-6 |
[25] |
N. Laskin, Fractional quantum mechanics and Lévy path integrals, Phys. Lett. A, 268 (2000), 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00201-2 doi: 10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00201-2
![]() |
[26] |
N. Laskin, Fractional Schrödinger equation, Phys. Rev. E, 66 (2002), 056108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.66.056108 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.056108
![]() |
[27] |
Q. Li, Z. Yang, Multiple solutions for a class of fractional quasi-linear equations with critical exponential growth in RN, Complex Var. Elliptic, 61 (2016), 969–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/17476933.2015.1131683 doi: 10.1080/17476933.2015.1131683
![]() |
[28] | C. Miranda, Un'osservazione su un teorema di Brouwer, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital., 3 (1940), 5–7. |
[29] | J. Moser, A sharp form of an inequality by N. Trudinger, Indiana Univ. Math. J., 20 (1970), 1077–1092. |
[30] |
T. Ozawa, On critical cases of Sobolev's inequalities, J. Funct. Anal., 127 (1995), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1006/jfan.1995.1012 doi: 10.1006/jfan.1995.1012
![]() |
[31] |
R. Pei, Fractional p-Laplacian equations with subcritical and critical exponential growth without the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition, Mediterr. J. Math., 15 (2018), 66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00009-018-1115-y doi: 10.1007/s00009-018-1115-y
![]() |
[32] |
P. Pucci, M. Xiang, B. Zhang, Multiple solutions for nonhomogeneous Schrödinger-Kirchhoff type equations involving the fractional p-Laplacian in RN, Calc. Var., 54 (2015), 2785–2806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-015-0883-5 doi: 10.1007/s00526-015-0883-5
![]() |
[33] |
S. Secchi, Ground state solutions for nonlinear fractional Schrödinger equations in RN, J. Math. Phys., 54 (2013), 031501. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4793990 doi: 10.1063/1.4793990
![]() |
[34] |
N. Thin, Multiplicity and concentration of solutions to a fractional p-Laplace problem with exponential growth, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 506 (2022), 125667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2021.125667 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2021.125667
![]() |
[35] |
Z. Wang, H. Zhou, Radial sign-changing solution for fractional Schrödinger equation, Discrete Cont. Dyn., 36 (2016), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.3934/dcds.2016.36.499 doi: 10.3934/dcds.2016.36.499
![]() |
[36] | M. Willem, Minimax theorems, Boston: Birkhäuser, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4146-1 |
[37] |
C. Zhang, Trudinger-Moser inequalities in fractional Sobolev-Slobodeckij spaces and multiplicity of weak solutions to the fractional-Laplacian equation, Adv. Nonlinear Stud., 19 (2019), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1515/ans-2018-2026 doi: 10.1515/ans-2018-2026
![]() |